8-5520 McCourt Road, Sechelt, BC, Canada, V0N 3A7 604-740-2637 (tel)

dbates@fsci-biological.ca

November 15, 2018 Our File No.: FSCI-18-0040 Andrew Broderick New Commons Development 90-425 Carrall St, Vancouver, BC Sent via email: abroderick@newcommons.ca Re: Review of the proposed Shaw Road housing property, Gibsons, BC Dear Andrew: It is our understanding that you are planning on an approximate 1.2-hectare housing development within a larger 8.1-hectare parcel. The objective is to develop the area with minimal environmental footprint. As proposed in our October 5th letter, we are providing our findings and comments regarding the area proposed for the Affordable Housing project. The desktop/ground review included the parcel (8.1 Ha).

1. Sensitive Ecosystem Review The area is included in the CWHxm1 Biogeoclimatic zone (BEC). Within this BEC there are a few ecological terrestrial vegetation communities identified as Red or Blue listed (Red = Threatened, Blue = Special Concern). These communities are typically described and delineated using site series data. We reviewed the BC Conservation Data centre (CDC) database and noted BEC and site series of concern. There are no documented ecological communities of concern (Blue or Red) in the vicinity of the project location. We provide this information more for interest than a definitive assessment. If concern or local data is provided that would suggest the presence of an ecological community of concern (primarily Red), a more stringent site review at the appropriate seasonal period may be warranted.

In addition to the CDC review, we also reviewed the Sensitive Ecosystem Inventory (SEI) for the area. The SEI has an area (polygon) identified to the south and west of the proposed development area. This area is listed as Riparian Forest and is discussed below.

2. Unique/Critical/Sensitive Habitats

In reviewing the site there was one area of concern. There is a required riparian setback from Charman Creek. The Town of Gibsons has identified this on their maps. To illustrate this area, we have taken the topographic data, corrected the Charman Creek channel location and its tributary. Charman Creek is a known salmonid bearing stream in the lower reaches. Therefore, the upper reaches are afforded protection as defined by the Provincial Riparian Area Regulations. The upper reaches, which contribute directly to known fish habitat downstream, require a Streamside Protection and Enhancement Area (SPEA).

2

Upper Charman Creek is located at the base of a steep ravine (southwest of Shaw Road). The topography of the area dictates the SPEA location starts from the top of the ravine and extends upland 10-m from the break in slope. As result the “protected area is fairly extensive. The SPEA must not be altered of adversely impacted by development. Mitigative measures are required for a development near the SPEA boundary. The Town of Gibsons should be able to provide this information. We have included an approximate SPEA boundary on the attached map. With the exception of the riparian area and SPEA, we did not find any other unique landscape areas of wetted habitats (wetland features).

3. Review of Large Tree Inventory

A detailed large tree inventory was completed by the developer and lists a large number of both conifer and deciduous trees. We assume the inventory is in response to concerns for area wildlife, namely birds and protection of available habitat. Ideally the majority of the large trees will remain post development. While some larger conifers may require removal, it is the larger deciduous, specifically the Bigleaf Maple that we would like to see preserved/protected (minimal loss). Maples of this size provide a wealth of wildlife habitat but, unfortunately this species is often considered a nuisance and removed. The area considered for avoidance during development is shown on the attached map.

4. Potential Area for Development

As we reviewed the parcel and proposed area to be developed we formulated and opinion on where we think the area should be located to “best” protected this established conifer forest.

Assuming the development proceeds on this parcel, we suggest the least amount of disturbance and loss would occur if the development occurred immediately adjacent to the northern property line. Minimizing the width, the development extends into the parcel. This would allow infrastructure access (egress and ingress) from Shaw and Eaglecrest, and minimize the loss and fragmentation of the forest, south on the development (including the southern half).

In summarizing the above observations and information, we offer the following points to consider.

• The riparian corridor on Charman Creek must be avoided. The proposed setback (SPEA) is currently shown from the top of the ravine. While this could be “fine-tuned”, there is a required setback established from the top of the ravine. Avoidance of this area and cautious development near the riparian edge is important. Development that impacts a riparian (SPEA) can be viewed as an infraction under the Federal Fisheries Act.

3

• Large trees (conifer and deciduous) are abundant and ideally, they would remain wherever possible. This is unlikely but, in the event, planning allows for selective removal of larger conifers, Western Hemlock should be removed and the Western Red Cedar and Douglas Fir retained. Where deciduous trees require removal, the Red Alder should be removed and the Bigleaf Maple remain. Our greatest concern with respect to the large trees is ensuring the retention of the maple. A large patch of maturing maple is shown on the attached map. These trees provide an enormous variety of wildlife habitat. Avoidance is recommended.

• Large trees that are retained within the project footprint should be included in a “patch” that includes trees and shrubs of various seral stage. Avoid large clearings wherever possible, protecting as many of the functioning forest attributes as possible.

In reviewing the conceptual plan for the development is appears this idea has been considered.

• Development footprint should be planned along the northern property boundary. The

objective should be to minimize the loss and fragmentation of the forested area. The area is currently used as movement corridor for large wildlife. Breaking this continuity should be avoided.

If development can be “linear” along the northern boundary, the area could be accessed from Eaglecrest and Shaw without further encroachment onto the maturing forest on the southern side of the development. Movement corridors that prevents habitat fragmentation should be the goal.

We trust this will meet your needs. If you have any questions please let me know at your convenience. Sincerely

D. Bates, PhD, RPBio Sr. Biologist

Sech

elt

Key M

ap

Legen

dDe

velop

ment

Lot

Boun

dary

Strea

m30

m Ini

tial R

iparia

nAs

sess

ment

Top o

f Rav

inePo

tentia

l SPE

AAp

proxim

ate Ar

ea W

ithMa

ture B

iglea

f Map

le

Prepar

ed Fo

r: Prop

rietar

y Purp

oses

Prepar

ed On

: Nove

mber

18, 20

18Pre

pared

By: FS

CI Biolo

gical C

onsul

tants

NOT IN

TENDE

D FOR

NAVIG

ATION

AL PU

RPOS

ES.

DISCLA

IMER

: This d

ocume

nt and

the s

tatem

ents

within

are p

resent

ed for

GIS d

ata co

nsulta

tion,

viewin

g and

collec

tion p

urpose

s only

, and a

resub

ject to

chan

ge. Th

is docu

ment

should

not b

euse

d for

navig

ation

al purp

oses.

Source

: Prov

ince o

f Briti

sh Co

lumbia

Scale:

1 : 2,0

00Ma

p proj

ection

: UTM

Zone

10N

Datum

: NAD

1983 1:2

,000

025

50Me

ters

¯

Lege

nd Ocea

n¯

1:1,50

0,000No

vembe

r 12,

2018

Shaw R

d Deve

lopme

ntRip

arian

Asses

smen

tStr

eam-sid

e Prot

ection

& Enh

ancem

ent A

reaMa

p 1 of

1